Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T17:40:01.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wanted Dead or Alive: Two Attempts to Solve Schrödinger’s Paradox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

David Albert  and
Barry Loewer
David Albert
Affiliation:
Columbia University and Rutgers University
Barry Loewer
Affiliation:
Columbia University and Rutgers University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a discussion of Schroedinger’s views on quantum theory John Bell says that Schroedinger did not see how “to account for particle tracks in track chambers…and more generally for the definiteness, the particularity, of experience, as compared with the indefiniteness, the waviness, of the wave function. It is the problem he had had with his cat. He thought it could not be both dead and alive. But the wave function showed no such commitment, superposing the possibilities. Either the wave function as given by the Schroedinger equation is not everything or it is not right” (Bell 1987). At a recent conference Bell sermonized against the employment of “for all practical purpose” reasoning- he called it FAP reasoning-to solve this problem (Bell 1989). He argued that we should not be satisfied with any alleged solution which works “for all practical purposes” only while leaving conceptual puzzles unresolved.

Type
Part IV. Quantum Theory
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1990 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1990 , 1990 , pp. 277 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

We would like to thank Hartry Field for the title and Yakir Aharanov for discussions of the modal interpretation.

References

Albert, D. and Loewer, B. (1988) “Interpreting the Many Worlds Interpretation”, Synthese 77: 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, D. and Loewer, B. (1989), “Two No-Collapse Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics”, Nous, 12: 121–38.Google Scholar
Albert, D. and Vaidman, L. (1988), “On a Theory of the Collapse of the Wave-Function”, Proceedings of George Mason conference on the foundations of quantum mechanics, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. (1987), The Speakable and the Unspeakable in Quantum Theory. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bell, J. (1989), Talk given at a conference “Thirty Years of Uncertainty” Erice, Sicily, August 1989.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. (1952), “A Suggested Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden Variables’: Part I,” Physical Review 85: 180-93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieks, D. (1989), “Resolution of the Measurement Problem Through Decoherence of the Quantum State”, Physics Letters A 142: 439-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghirardi, G., Rimini, A., and Weber, M., (1986), Physical Review D 34: 470-9.Google Scholar
Healey, R. (1988), The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kochen, S. (1985), “A New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,” in Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, Lahti, and Middlestadt, (eds.). Teaneck, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Co., pp. 151–170.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. (1981), “A Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,” in Current Issues in Quantum Logic, Beltrametti, E. and Van Frassen, B. (eds.), New York: Plenum, pp. 229–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. (1990), Quantum Mechanics: an Empiricist View, ms.Google Scholar
Von Neuman, J.(1955), The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton.Google Scholar